Judge rules against Qualcomm twice in its patent battles against Apple

Judge Gonzolo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, today rejected Qualcomm's request for a preliminary injunction. Qualcomm was hoping that the court would force manufacturers of the AppleiPhone and Apple iPad to pay the chip maker royalties for the use of certain Qualcomm patents. These standard essential patents are supposed to be licensed using fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). Contract manufacturers like Compal Electronics Inc., Foxconn Technology Group, Pegatron Corp. and Wistron Corp. have stopped paying Qualcomm royalties at Apple's request, with Apple complaining that Qualcomm failed to use FRAND to determine its royalties structure.

The legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm also deals with royalty rebate payments that Qualcomm was supposed to make to Apple. The former stopped cutting these checks in September 2016, which obviously raised Apple's ire. Apple has sued Qualcomm over the royalties the chip maker is asking for, citing violation of anti-trust laws, U.S. patent law, and Qualcomm's failure to ask for reasonable royalties for its standard essential patents.

Besides ruling today against Qualcomm's request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Curiel also ruled against Qualcomm's request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked Apple from suing Qualcomm over the same issues, but in different jurisdictions. Since the court will eventually rule on what a fair royalty payment should be for Qualcomm's standard essential patents, the company was hoping to keep the legal issues local (in other words, near Qualcomm's San Diego headquarters).

Starting last year, Apple also cut back on its use of Qualcomm's modem chip for the iPhone by also purchasing the part from Intel. Having at least two sources for major components is something that Apple always seeks. This way, if one source cannot deliver the goods, Apple can count on the second one to make up the difference. Also, by having two sources for a major part, Apple can play one against the other in an attempt to obtain favorable pricing.

Well isn't that funny, other sites have said it is only supporting up to 500 Mbps. Then ifixit shows the iPhone's internals today. So it's using Qualcomms gigabit modem, which also has the latest WiFi and Bluetooth 5 included on board. Yet Apple was telling everyone they were going with Intel and dropping Qualcomm. But in the new iPhone is using Qualcomms modems again. Isn't that funny. But it's probably like last year, where they will use some Qualcomm modems and some Intel modems. Who knows since Apple is secretive, and doesn't like to talk about specs. But since it has Bluetooth 5. Then it would have to have a Qualcomm modems for sure then in every new iPhone. At the end of the day Apple will have to pay for sure. Its just how much.

Apple needs to put in gigabit modems because iPhone 7's 600 Mbps modem is capable of just 3 times the top speeds the carriers all over the world offer?
Can you show me a Note 8 LTE speed test that reaches... not 6, but 400 Mbps on a commercial network?

3.Xilam (unregistered)

You know what? I like iOS, but this is kinda BS... I'm on Qualcomm side to this battle.. Apple signed the agreement - QUALCOMM didn't change anything or under deliver on what promised... On contrary - qualcomm modems are better than competition. If Apple didn't like that the price to pay has grown dramatically over time (based on initial agreement) - apple should have asked NICELY for a re-negotiation, but not force it thru lawsuits or start a payment boycott with other companies.

I believe if you don't want to do business anymore due to ANY REASON, you have the right to stop doing business with that entity - not tell them what they should charge.

Contract is a contract.. If someone changes their mind down the line and can force that change despite of contract - what is the damn point of a contract?

7.Xilam (unregistered)

I disagree with many of your points actually - there were obvious trade-dress copyright infringements from Samsung. Your post reeks of sensationalism, and I cant take it seriously.

I believe in the power of an agreed contract. that goes for patents, regardless how stupid they may be - if apple was granted one, Samsung had to abide by it, even if they didn't agree. But Samsung infringed on a real patent - and apple had the right to sue. Its a corporate world - we may not understand it - but that's how the law is made. If Samsung or anyone else thought the trade-dress patents were awarded apple are silly - they should go after patent office... not just ignore it..

Do you agree that Xaomi was granted a trademark "just one more thing" - something apple used since before the iPhone? I don't see your types complaining about silly patents when one of Android EM's does it!

17.Xilam (unregistered)

Like I said, take it up with the paten office... they're the retard that actually award this stuff... instead of telling Apple (or whoever) to not waste their time...

How would you like to think you got an original idea, do the necessary leg work, and pay the costs to patent it, waste millions defending the damn patent you already got, just to get it removed 5 years later?... I'd be pissed off.

I don't disagree with your points, I'm just saying that you're point the finger at the wrong organization. USPO is really messed up - don't award patents if you're not going to hold them up in the future.

This isn’t about contracts. This is about Qualcomm wielding their patents in an an anti-competitive fashion. They have already been fined in China and South Korea, and are under investigation by the EU and the FTC. They block competing chips from the US market and drive up the cost of American cellular products.

lol, I get it. I'm on the side of Qualcomm too, seems if one signs a contract to buy or lease or produce a number of a product, and they produce that number of a product, they are obligated to pay the other party. The only reason a payment boycott works is because Apple is such a large player. If they don't like the prices, they should argue that, and negotiate better prices. Instead, they've dropped their end of the contractual agreement. Qualcomm should have taken this to East Texas and claimed some "patent infringement" bs lol

Spoken like someone who's never done business in the real world. No contract is bulletproof if you can show a judge good cause/bad faith on the part of the other party. Besides courts all over the world have come down hard on Qualcomm for abuse, that is not coincidence. Man, people hate Apple so much they can't see how good things would be for everyone else in the mobile world for an Apple win.

Right now Qualcomm is abusing their FRAND patents, to the point where Samsung can't even use their own chips in NA devices. This would bring a lot more competition in the android arena instead of every one of those android vendors obligated to use qualcomm.

22.Xilam (unregistered)

If apple wins, this will be precedent for all forced contract re-negotiations... it's the principle of the matter... if this becomes the norm, it will probably hurt apple more at some point than the benefit of wining this case against QC.

These people are delusional. This ruling took place in South Cali, where BOTH these companies have their HQ, and yet somehow the judge is in Apple's back pocket because logic? Nonsense. The notion that either company pays judges is hogwash worthy of being laughed at.

11.Xilam (unregistered)

I sometimes I don’t agree with you - but on this I’m with you kiko. I think these kids get their information NOT from real world corporate economics but rather from what they see in movies with plots made strictly for entertainment.

We'll have to show you where Cupertino is on a map because that would only strengthen your point. Only QC is in southern California.

Since this is the same judge that couldn't be bought or intimidated by Trump even though Trump bashed his Mexican heritage, and ended up making him pay $25 million, I don't a corporation can buy him either. But at the end, these rulings are merely on injunctions and had little chance of success in the first place.

Apple wants to force it's way out of a contract it signed with Qualcomm... How can a judge approve this? Qualcomm might be greedy with it's standard essential patents, but Apple still signed, so Apple has to comply with the dea it signed... Never thought someone could challenge and even force a change of the conditions of a contract after signing it! Wow!

Spoken like someone who's never done business in the real world. No contract is bulletproof if you can show a judge good cause/bad faith on the part of the other party. Besides courts all over the world have come down hard on Qualcomm for abuse, that is not coincidence. Man, people hate Apple so much they can't see how good things would be for everyone else in the mobile world for an Apple win.

Right now Qualcomm is abusing their FRAND patents, to the point where Samsung can't even use their own chips in NA devices. This would bring a lot more competition in the android arena instead of every one of those android vendors obligated to use qualcomm.

21.Xilam (unregistered)

toukale, you're my favorite poster lately (most of your posts got my green thumbs), but come on, this is a contract - how can a judge do this? QUALCOMM delivers good products, no lack in quantity or quality, they're capable of keeping up with demand, not just apples, but other manufacturers. Apple tried going to intel for modems, but they're not as fast, nor can intel fill apples quantity demand - so in simple terms, apple crying to judge that it doesn't like the terms apple agreed upon initially.

trojan_horse has summarized exactly the problem I'm having with Apple over this.

CES 2018: the best new phones, tablets, wearables and headphones

Samsung CES 2018 press conference liveblog

All content (phone reviews, news, specs, info), design and layouts are Copyright 2001-2018 phoneArena.com. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part or in any form or medium without written permission is prohibited! Privacy . Terms of use . Cookies . Team